I was using a metaphor (because I obviously dont believe in sky-faeries), the simple fact that the Catholic church has hidden this information, and dealt with these sick people itself and has not gone to the police suggests very strongly that a religious institution whose head is essentially God (but in reality the Pope because God does not exist), therefore the head is the Pope (who claims to speak directly to God) therefore this is being covered up in the name of God by a tax evading company that sells God to people.

Quote:

All of this does not mean they should not be tried by humans.

I am very glad that you agree, unfortunately few of these child rapists actually have been, many have been hidden by the Catholic Church.

Quote:

They will be forgiven spiritually speaking, not humanely speaking !!

I cant deplore that enough, it obviously has no effect whatsowever, as some of these child rapists have (presumably) been "forgiven", and have been shipped off to another country where they have raped more children. Forgiveness is worthless to these immoral evil people, a very very long prison sentence would have stopped them raping more children, forgiveness has done nothing at all.

I doubt that many of the people who have been raped will want to forgive anyway, and it is not anyone elses right to forgive, it is only the right of those who have directly and indirectly been affected to choose to forgive or not. Adding to this point, any bible thumping ordained persons who forgive these evil child rapists should be strung up as well, as they dont have the moral right to forgive (unless they were raped by the person they are forgiving), and in doing so simply shows the shallowness of the individual, and the total disrespect to those affected, and possibly the worst part of this is that it could be perceived that this makes it OK, for other people to commit such evil crimes as they will also be let off with nothing more that a slap on the wrist (forgiveness) - possibly why this is still going on today, and has not been stopped decades (centuries) ago.

Quote:

That's also called separation between religion and state.

There is unless the religion hides it from the state, which is a huge part of this huge scandal.

a.) Why did you have your savage followers steal everything that I own and burn down my house because you saw a video on youtube that supposedly had a document that (your followers) are not allowed to desecrate, and had nothing at all to do with me except that I follow a different invisible impotent deity.

b.) We have taken vengeance upon you Kafir's for supposedly showing on youtube the burning of the Holy Qu'Ran, we in our rage will steal everything you own and burn your property, be grateful you were not there, we follow our hateful invisible impotent deity and protect his image including "teddy bears being named after him", but millions of people are allowed to be called "Mo".

I would laugh, but people get killed because of this shit every day, mostly in 3rd world shitholes like Africa (plural) where a Muslim terrorist group just murdered a load of children yesterday (30-09-2012), probably because they were in a Church (Christian), therefore religious murder - some idiots might call it "sectarian" or some other Euphemism that means anything other than murder on religious grounds - what does a child know about religion - nothing, they are taught this shit in the same way they are taught the language they speak, by their parents or the area they live in.

Disgust......

... is the only word that I can say on this matter, with the possible addition of "Total", which is why I have dredged this "ancient" post up, to recollect peoples feeling on such matters of "brutal inhumanity in the name of religion".

PS: Don't even bother mentioning Stalin, Hitler or Pol Pot, lets talk about the last 7 years, not the last 70 years.

a.) Why did you have your savage followers steal everything that I own and burn down my house because you saw a video on youtube that supposedly had a document that (your followers) are not allowed to desecrate, and had nothing at all to do with me except that I follow a different invisible impotent deity.

b.) We have taken vengeance upon you Kafir's for supposedly showing on youtube the burning of the Holy Qu'Ran, we in our rage will steal everything you own and burn your property, be grateful you were not there, we follow our hateful invisible impotent deity and protect his image including "teddy bears being named after him", but millions of people are allowed to be called "Mo".

Sadly the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the best religion to answer these questions in their 8 I'd really rather you didn'ts:

Quote:

1. I'd really rather you didn't act like a sanctimonious holier-than-thou ass when describing my noodly goodness. If some people don't believe in me, that's okay. Really, I'm not that vain. Besides, this isn't about them so don't change the subject.

2. I'd really rather you didn't use my existence as a means to oppress, subjugate, punish, eviscerate, and/or, you know, be mean to others. I don't require sacrifices, and purity is for drinking water, not people.

3. I'd really rather you didn't judge people for the way they look, or how they dress, or the way they talk, or, well, just play nice, okay? Oh, and get this into your thick heads: woman = person. man = person. Samey = Samey. One is not better than the other, unless we're talking about fashion and I'm sorry, but I gave that to women and some guys who know the difference between teal and fuchsia.

4. I'd really rather you didn't indulge in conduct that offends yourself, or your willing, consenting partner of legal age AND mental maturity. As for anyone who might object, I think the expression is "go fuck yourself," unless they find that offensive in which case they can turn off the TV for once and go for a walk for a change.

5. I'd really rather you didn't challenge the bigoted, misogynistic, hateful ideas of others on an empty stomach. Eat, then go after the bitches.

6. I'd really rather you didn't build multi million-dollar synagogues / churches / temples / mosques / shrines to my noodly goodness when the money could be better spent (take your pick):I. Ending povertyII. Curing diseasesIII. Living in peace, loving with passion, and lowering the cost of cableI might be a complex-carbohydrate omniscient being, but I enjoy the simple things in life. I ought to know. I AM the creator.

7. I'd really rather you didn't go around telling people I talk to you. You're not that interesting. Get over yourself. And I told you to love your fellow man, can't you take a hint?

8. I'd really rather you didn't do unto others as you would have them do unto you if you are into, um, stuff that uses a lot of leather/lubricant/vaseline. If the other person is into it, however (pursuant to #4), then have at it, take pictures, and for the love of Mike, wear a CONDOM! Honestly, it's a piece of rubber. If I didn't want it to feel good when you did it I would have added spikes, or something.

Why did you have your savage followers steal everything that I own and burn down my house because you saw a video on youtube that supposedly had a document that (your followers) are not allowed to desecrate, and had nothing at all to do with me except that I follow a different invisible impotent deity.

I know this one! He didn't, and they weren't his followers. They were a few of the power-hungry psychopaths residing in that region of the world and a horde of those too lazy, illiterate, and/or impoverished to study their own holy book.

andyb wrote:

Don't even bother mentioning Stalin, Hitler or Pol Pot, lets talk about the last 7 years, not the last 70 years.

Let me get this straight: you wish to discard almost all available data and focus exclusively on a time-frame in which no atheist state exists? And I suppose you'll want to keep ignoring all the religionists who aren't murderous nutjobs and all the murderous nutjobs that aren't religionists? How scientific of you.

Seriously, d00d, you've got as much blind faith as a Bible-thumper and as much self-righteous outrage as a Wahhabi. You say there is no god? Prove it. You say religion is a negative influence? Prove it. It's your turn to bear the burden of proof.

_________________If you've examined both sides of an argument, you haven't examined enough sides.

There is no evidence for their being a God. Religion is human weakness to what people can't understand when they are unscientific and do not look for logical explanations. It has become part of culture down the ages, nothing else.

Irrelevant wrote:

You say religion is a negative influence? Prove it.

If it wasn't for the church burning people as heretics think how much further science would have advanced through the middle ages. There would have been no discernable 'renaissance' because we'd have been working at that same pace all of the way through from classical times to our current industrialised self.

Even now religion does damage in the 3rd world, not just those people who go round burning down houses because their cultural differences that we call religion. In many African countries where AIDS is a big killer and really does put millions in poverty contraception is illegal. Why is it illegal? Well that would be down to Christian prolife theology.

I know this one! He didn't, and they weren't his followers. They were a few of the power-hungry psychopaths residing in that region of the world and a horde of those too lazy, illiterate, and/or impoverished to study their own holy book.

I was being "facetious" and "sarcastic. Below is the link for the rarely used word facetious that many people will not be familiar with (both native English speakers and others).

Let me get this straight: you wish to discard almost all available data and focus exclusively on a time-frame in which no atheist state exists? And I suppose you'll want to keep ignoring all the religionists who aren't murderous nutjobs and all the murderous nutjobs that aren't religionists? How scientific of you.

My point was very simple, to not tread a path that has been worn down by many arguments, many times, over many years... If you want to you can read this very very long thread from the beginning - you will find all of the names of those evil murderous bastards mentioned followed by the counter arguments, which is why I dont want to be bored to death by doing that all-over again.

Quote:

Seriously, d00d, you've got as much blind faith as a Bible-thumper and as much self-righteous outrage as a Wahhabi. You say there is no god? Prove it. You say religion is a negative influence? Prove it. It's your turn to bear the burden of proof.

This argument has been squashed a thousand times already, but here I go again.... I (me, personally) get things wrong sometimes, I have the balls to own up to being wrong because I know that a sensible and clever person will recognise that as a positive reflection on me as a human being rather than as a negative. If you want too search these very forums you will find (a few years ago I believe) me arguing that the "Moon Landings" were faked in a studio - as a person who understands the "scientific method" and the principles behind it I bowed down to the "evidence" presented to me by many other forum members and publicly changed my stance.

If I did not at the time do so, I will now tell you that I was very naive ( and most un-scientific) when I took as "proof" the evidence shown to me (a TV documentary) to be true, each and every single point I had was stripped from me and replaced with better "evidence" that was verified and thoroughly tested, as I am not religious and I firmly believe in the scientific method I had no choice but to change my stance. I do believe that the Moon Landings were real and not faked, the burden of proof is entirely with the people who believe that the Moon Landings were faked, they still have to fulfill that burden of proof, NASA has nothing at all to prove.

Please on this note have a look at the 2 following links (4 actually as there are 3 different classifications of "Burden of Proof").

You might see where this is going... The burden of proof is with religious people everywhere as was explained by Bertrand Russell with his "Teapot". You cannot "prove" that it does not exist, and you cant even "prove" that this teapot is not actually "God" and the creator of everything, neither can I. However the burden of proof must lie with the person who is claiming this "Teapot God" exists. As however there is no evidence for the existence of "God" in any porcelain format or other types of stoneware or fine china the burden of proof must always lie with the person who believe that it exists and yet cannot show any evidence.

A perfect example of this is a now rather famous chap called "Mr Higgs", he envisaged (in a scientific manner) that a sub-atomic particle must exist, lots of people did not believe him, some did but they had no evidence until recently, now scientists "are pretty certain, but not 100%" that they have found the "Higgs Boson". They are still conducting research and may at some point change their mind and decide that it is actually a different sub-atomic particle.

Note that the word "tentatively" is used a few times.... Scientists rarely ever state things in black and white terms, and most Atheists will state that they are 99.9999% certain that there is no God unlike most religious people who claim with absolute certainty that there is, and that you will go to hell for not believing in and paying to God. If I have stated that "there is NO God" or "God does NOT Exist" then please take it as "rounding up".

I almost forgot, religion as a "negative". Please dont comment on these videos unless you have watched them from start to finish.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddsz9XBhrYA Its pretty "buzzy", not much I can do about it, its better than the first one I posted - if someone finds a better one, please either post it and I will change my post and give them the glory (sorry but the original copy here is a bit shit, it went out of sync in about 15-minutes DONT USE THIS one, only kept here for reference purposes, I will delete it in a couple of days. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xq2GmUa4s7Y)

At what point did I claim that God exists or that the Rapture was coming, andyb and edh? In all of my posts, I have played the part of a skeptic, attacking your reasoning and not your conclusions. If I may continue in that vein:

Russell’s TeapotYou claim there is no god because there is no evidence of one (ie, the absence of proof is disproof), and that “the burden of proof is upon the religious.” Ironically, these are logical equivalents to what Russell’s teapot disproved: “You must believe as I do because you can’t prove me wrong.” In fact, the burden of proof is upon the believer, and no matter what that belief is, the absence of disproof is not proof, and the absence of proof is not disproof (ie, the default position for any logical proposition is "maybe,” with optional qualification).

So in this case, andyb and edh, you are the believers. You both claimed that god doesn’t exist. That is a belief. Your failure to prove your belief (an inevitability, according to Russell) doesn’t prove it false, but it does prove that it is faith-based and irrational.

Psychology Trumps IdeologyBlaming religion for violence is like blaming football for hooliganism. It’s mistaking correlation for causation, and humans for rational animals. Group violence is driven primarily by the psychological satisfaction derived from acting out the “us vs. them” narrative. What distinguishes “us” from “them” is irrelevant and quite possibly manufactured for just that purpose. Ever heard of the Stanford Prison Experiment?

To be blunt, you are grossly overestimating human intelligence and integrity. Even when our rabble isn't roused, most of our “beliefs” are on loan from the collective, and the remainder rarely stand for long against the will of the herd. When we’re in a mindset capable of violence, only saints and psychopaths are capable of connecting their actions to something as esoteric as Islam, injustice, or freedom from oppression. The rest of us are too busy thinking, “Me smash! Me like!”

So what makes religion so different from all the other ideologies and causes people claim to fight for? You really think people wouldn’t find some other excuse to behave badly? Judging by what has occurred in atheist states (sorry, andyb, but ignoring them is like performing an experiment without a test group), the answer is no.

Science Ain’t No ScienceReligionists aren’t the only ones with invisible teapots. What do you think dark energy and dark matter are? They’re invisible, “seen” only by indirect observation, and they explain the otherwise-unexplainable. From a logical standpoint, how is that different from god? Why can't scientists just admit they got gravity wrong?

And if they're right, and dark matter does surround us, penetrate us, and bind the universe together, why can’t I have a lightsaber?

There is no doubt that the scientific method is a powerful tool, but scientists are just as human as the rest of us. They'd have to be gods themselves for their work to be free of ego, preconception, and groupthink.

Conclusion:Watch your next step. Nihilism is a doozy.

Seriously, though, sometimes we could all benefit from a little more uncertainty and a lot more self-awareness. All too often, our made-up minds are armored by cognitive dissonance and impervious to reality. If I hadn't seen it so often in others, I'd still have plenty of examples in myself, but for some reason, I've forgotten most of them.

P.S. -- Apologies for the delay. It's been a gnarly few days.

_________________If you've examined both sides of an argument, you haven't examined enough sides.

So in this case, andyb and edh, you are the believers. You both claimed that god doesn’t exist. That is a belief.

No. Stop turning things round. Science works by fact, theory and hypothesis. We don't 'claim' that god does not exist, there is no evidence for a god and the proof being the overwhelming weight of Scientific progress over the last 5000+ years. I hence have no 'belief' that there is no god, there is simply no scientific evidence for a god.

Irrelevant wrote:

Religionists aren’t the only ones with invisible teapots. What do you think dark energy and dark matter are?

They are hypotheses to explain phenomena. This means that we have something testable which shows there is evidence for dark energy and dark matter. The belief/hypothesis/theory/fact confusion is very familiar given those that oppose evolution with the supposition that it is 'only a theory'. It is not a strong argument as it shows a lack of understanding. A hypothesis is very different from a belief.

Irrelevant wrote:

They’re invisible, “seen” only by indirect observation, and they explain the otherwise-unexplainable. From a logical standpoint, how is that different from god?

It's a hypothesis, not a belief. This is very different. Is the presence of a god testable? No. Is the existence of dark matter and dark energy testable? Yes. Hence it is a hypothesis.

Irrelevant wrote:

Why can't scientists just admit they got gravity wrong?

Now there might be an element of trolling here. Would you please be so good as to explain your alternative 'theory'?

No. Stop turning things round. Science works by fact, theory and hypothesis. We don't 'claim' that god does not exist, there is no evidence for a god and the proof being the overwhelming weight of Scientific progress over the last 5000+ years. I hence have no 'belief' that there is no god, there is simply no scientific evidence for a god.

It's a hypothesis, not a belief. This is very different. Is the presence of a god testable? No. Is the existence of dark matter and dark energy testable? Yes. Hence it is a hypothesis.

I am not necessarily arguing one way or the other on the validity or usefulness of science, but your decision to rely on science in deciding whether or not God exists is an assumption and belief on your part that science is the appropriate way to know that. You cannot prove that science is the proper method to understand metaphysics.

In the preface to the first edition of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, he says the following:

"Human reason has this peculiar fate that in one species of its knowledge it is burdened by questions which, as prescribed by the very nature of reason itself, it is not able to ignore, but which, as transcending all its powers, it is also not able to answer." [The species of knowledge Kant here refers to is metaphysics, and the knowledge we cannot achieve is a knowledge of God, the world, and the soul.]

Now, what you may not know is that Kant was not arguing for some alternate kind of knowledge, he is rather simply stating that reason cannot know anything about metaphysics. Kant started a revolution in philosophy during the Enlightenment, claiming that the only thing we can have knowledge about is of our sense perceptions of reality, and not reality itself. In many ways, Kant's philosophy was the beginning of the philosophical foundation of the scientific method, but certainly Kant knew that there were limitations about which questions science could answer, one way or the other.

BTW, don't be fooled by the title Critique of Pure Reason, as Kant (who wrote in German) was not criticizing reason, but rather offering his critique of philosophical inquiry using pure reason.

At what point did I claim that God exists or that the Rapture was coming, andyb and edh? In all of my posts, I have played the part of a skeptic, attacking your reasoning and not your conclusions.

I am not going to re-read all of your posts in this thread and as a reasonable person I will assume that you are correct and have not directly claimed that, however you did say "You say there is no god? Prove it." that is what I am trying to get across to you.

Quote:

You claim there is no god because there is no evidence of one (ie, the absence of proof is disproof), and that “the burden of proof is upon the religious.” Ironically, these are logical equivalents to what Russell’s teapot disproved: “You must believe as I do because you can’t prove me wrong.” In fact, the burden of proof is upon the believer, and no matter what that belief is, the absence of disproof is not proof, and the absence of proof is not disproof (ie, the default position for any logical proposition is "maybe,” with optional qualification).

So in this case, andyb and edh, you are the believers. You both claimed that god doesn’t exist. That is a belief. Your failure to prove your belief (an inevitability, according to Russell) doesn’t prove it false, but it does prove that it is faith-based and irrational.

You have missed the point of the whole concept of "burden of proof", and yes in relation to the classic "does God exist" question the burden of proof lies entirely with the people who claim that God does exist for the following reason - any and all (meaningful and measurable) evidence to support the idea that God exists has been proven to be either false or unprovable, however the evidence to suggest that God does NOT exist is enormous and the parties trying to prove otherwise have provided little or nothing to counter the argument that God does not exist.

Quote:

Blaming religion for violence is like blaming football for hooliganism. It’s mistaking correlation for causation, and humans for rational animals. Group violence is driven primarily by the psychological satisfaction derived from acting out the “us vs. them” narrative. What distinguishes “us” from “them” is irrelevant and quite possibly manufactured for just that purpose.

Please tell me whether the following statement would be considered "football" or "hooliganism""Kill the nonbelievers wherever you find them."

Please tell me whether the following statement would be considered "football" or "hooliganism"

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: 'by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.' "

Quote:

So what makes religion so different from all the other ideologies and causes people claim to fight for? You really think people wouldn’t find some other excuse to behave badly? Judging by what has occurred in atheist states (sorry, andyb, but ignoring them is like performing an experiment without a test group), the answer is no.

I think we are arguing from a similar direction on a number of points here. I dont only blame religion for all of the ills of this world, I also blame cultism and ideologies that appear in many forms not just religious forms as well as those who simply want power, however due to the overwhelming majority of people on this planet who are religious and the ridiculous amount of religious violence between different religious groups it is impossible to deny that religious violence exists.

The part that makes religious people so prone to violence towards people from another religious group comes in 3 main forms. They often have a "God mandated excuse to be violent to another religious group", what could possibly be a stronger calling for violence for the brainwashed armies of God.? There is usually a lot of historical violence between different religious groups which really helps to re-ignite violence with little provocation. Religion infects regions of the world a great deal more where there is little education, or to put it another way religion in many parts of the world is a direct cause of a lack of education, which in turn helps to fuel violence as stupid people are much easier to push towards violence.

Quote:

Religionists aren’t the only ones with invisible teapots. What do you think dark energy and dark matter are? They’re invisible, “seen” only by indirect observation, and they explain the otherwise-unexplainable.

I dont know what dark matter/energy are, I have never read much on the subject at all. Dark matter/energy is being worked on by many scientists in many different ways to identify whether it does actually exist, and if so what it is and how better to understand it. This cannot be comparable with religion in any way as religion by definition is "the true word of God" and as such anything that disagrees with religion is thrown out as being incorrect or Blasphemous because religion makes people stupid by telling them that we already know everything that we ever need to know - science does the exact opposite.

Quote:

Why can't scientists just admit they got gravity wrong?

I am sure they will at some point in the future "Gravitational Theory" will be revised when a better more accurate Theory is widely accepted, it has already been revised several times there is nothing to say that we know everything there is to know about gravity.

There is no doubt that the scientific method is a powerful tool, but scientists are just as human as the rest of us. They'd have to be gods themselves for their work to be free of ego, preconception, and groupthink.

I would not disagree with the fact that science does sometimes get stuck in a rut (part of being human I suppose), and then someone (still human) comes along and re-writes science.... thats what science does, it is constantly striving for better answers and more knowledge than what we have now. A perfect example of scientists getting things wrong, and then another scientist comes along and re-defined our knowledge.

Seriously, though, sometimes we could all benefit from a little more uncertainty and a lot more self-awareness. All too often, our made-up minds are armored by cognitive dissonance and impervious to reality. If I hadn't seen it so often in others, I'd still have plenty of examples in myself, but for some reason, I've forgotten most of them.

I agree totally, which is why I sometimes catching myself stating as though it is proven fact that God does NOT exist, rather than me saying that I am 99.999% certain that God does not exist, which is true as I cannot prove the extra 0.001%

I am not necessarily arguing one way or the other on the validity or usefulness of science, but your decision to rely on science in deciding whether or not God exists is an assumption and belief on your part that science is the appropriate way to know that. You cannot prove that science is the proper method to understand metaphysics.

The same question could be applied to "metaphysics" itself, is "metaphysics" even the appropriate description of the subject.?

The same question could be applied to "metaphysics" itself, is "metaphysics" even the appropriate description of the subject.?

Andy

So long as we all agree that a person's (unproven) beliefs about the methodology to be used to determine whether God exists plays an outcome in the results of whether you believe or don't believe that God exists, that is OK with me. Any demand that reason alone be used to decide whether God exists is as much an unproven "belief" as any unproven believe that some people have that God does exist.

Of course, some believe that there is no such thing as metaphysical knowledge (knowledge of God, the soul, etc), but virtually all philosophers (even atheists and agnostics) do agree that if there were such a thing as metaphysical knowledge, reason alone could not be used to comprehend it or to prove its existence.

So long as we all agree that a person's (unproven) beliefs about the methodology to be used to determine whether God exists plays an outcome in the results of whether you believe or don't believe that God exists, that is OK with me. Any demand that reason alone be used to decide whether God exists is as much an unproven "belief" as any unproven believe that some people have that God does exist.

I would personally never sacrifice reason in the pursuit of anything, but sadly some people do.

Quote:

Of course, some believe that there is no such thing as metaphysical knowledge (knowledge of God, the soul, etc), but virtually all philosophers (even atheists and agnostics) do agree that if there were such a thing as metaphysical knowledge, reason alone could not be used to comprehend it or to prove its existence.

I doubt that "metaphysical knowledge" exists, and until there is some reasonable evidence to support it I wont change my opinion, my opinion does not just cover God, the soul, ghosts or magic, but all other forms of the supernatural such as visitations, talking to the dead, angels, faith healing, saints, afterlife or superstitions etc. Most of these areas have been totally dismissed by either science or reason, and as I shall not drop either science or reason I find it almost impossible to believe that anything supernatural exists, regardless of the meaning of "exist".

Changing the subject a little away from "metaphysics"....

Sadly most of the pro-God arguments that crop up when the pro-God parties evidence fails usually result in pathetic arguments such as "But there must be something after life", I have been told that by someone I used to work with, the emphasis is on the word "must", this is called "wish-thinking", as though wishing something to be true makes it so, and/or believing in something such as an afterlife against all reason and evidence which is called a "delusion".

I would personally never sacrifice reason in the pursuit of anything, but sadly some people do.

That is part of your personal belief system. It cannot be proven that reason is superior in understanding all things.

andyb wrote:

I doubt that "metaphysical knowledge" exists, and until there is some reasonable evidence to support it I wont change my opinion, my opinion does not just cover God, the soul, ghosts or magic, but all other forms of the supernatural such as visitations, talking to the dead, angels, faith healing, saints, afterlife or superstitions etc. Most of these areas have been totally dismissed by either science or reason, and as I shall not drop either science or reason I find it almost impossible to believe that anything supernatural exists, regardless of the meaning of "exist".

Yes, I understand, your sole reliance on reason and science is part of your "belief" system. Using that criteria alone, your conclusions are logical, but are a tautology, just like one who believes that God does exist. I refer you to Immanuel Kant (or even David Hume) for more information on this subject.

andyb wrote:

Changing the subject a little away from "metaphysics"....

Sadly most of the pro-God arguments that crop up when the pro-God parties evidence fails usually result in pathetic arguments such as "But there must be something after life", I have been told that by someone I used to work with, the emphasis is on the word "must", this is called "wish-thinking", as though wishing something to be true makes it so, and/or believing in something such as an afterlife against all reason and evidence which is called a "delusion".

Of all the arguments I have heard regarding the existence of God, saying that there must be an after-life for humans after they die is not at all convincing. Not everyone who believes that God exists, believe that a personal after-life awaits us, and even among those who do, they are many different opinions about what that after-life actually is. The fact that it is not true that there must be a personal after-life awaiting us, does not IMO prove that God does not exist. Even using reason and logic, that would be a non sequitur to conclude on that basis that God cannot exist.

However, if one wants to argue that there must be (or at least may be) something (which of course is not a thing at all) that existed before the Big Bang, and before time and space and the physical universe came into existence (what Aristotle called the Prime Mover), that sounds a little more convincing, but one still cannot prove the existence of a non-physical entity using the reason and logic alone (again, I refer you to the quotation from Kant in my previous post).

That is part of your personal belief system. It cannot be proven that reason is superior in understanding all things.

As a person who is reasonable I would agree.

Quote:

Yes, I understand, your sole reliance on reason and science is part of your "belief" system. Using that criteria alone, your conclusions are logical, but are a tautology, just like one who believes that God does exist. I refer you to Immanuel Kant (or even David Hume) for more information on this subject.

I have read snippets written by both of those fine thinkers, but like most writings these bits of text were evidence against the belief in the supernatural rather than for it.

I best add (before anyone else has the same train of thought as I have) that my "beliefs" as you put them are not in any way comparable to a religion, as unlike the religious I dont believe that I will go to hell/heaven for doing or not doing certain things, I can and will change my viewpoint when I feel that the change of view is merited, I also dont belong to a "club" of other people who think the way that I do, there is nothing to pray for or to, there is no holy book and no church. As someone once mentioned (likely paraphrased), "trying to get a large amount of Atheists together in one place and at one time is like herding cats."

Quote:

Of all the arguments I have heard regarding the existence of God, saying that there must be an after-life for humans after they die is not at all convincing. Not everyone who believes that God exists, believe that a personal after-life awaits us, and even among those who do, they are many different opinions about what that after-life actually is.

I dont doubt that there are God believers who dont believe in an afterlife, however it is a significant trend amongst the religious - the particulars are all laid out in their respective holy books, some believe in heaven, some in heaven and hell, some in heaven and limbo and hell (even though limbo has been officially withdrawn), some believe that suicide whilst murdering many other people will get you into heaven, some believe in re-incarnation, etc. This is one of the biggest fallacies with religions of all types, and should be grouped alongside the questions of "why" are there 4000+ types of religion on the planet as we speak, why have there been thousands before that have been wiped out, why are there so many gods competing for peoples worship, why do things like "hell" and "limbo" get created and then (limbo only) after mentally torturing millions of people get dropped, there is only one logical answer, religion is man made - if it was created by a single all powerful all-knowing God then we wouldn't have thousands of religions with its different factions constantly murdering each other, we would have just one religion and one god.... unless god is a pervert and enjoys watching us in this perpetual state of hatred and violence (which if various holy books were true would be an accurate description).

Quote:

However, if one wants to argue that there must be (or at least may be) something (which of course is not a thing at all) that existed before the Big Bang, and before time and space and the physical universe came into existence (what Aristotle called the Prime Mover), that sounds a little more convincing, but one still cannot prove the existence of a non-physical entity using the reason and logic alone (again, I refer you to the quotation from Kant in my previous post).

I have no problem with accepting "Einstein's God" or a similar concept along the lines of "god is everything that we do not yet know/understand" (which seems to be broadly similar to several of the founding fathers concept of "god") that is called "Deism". "Theism" is where "a personal god that listens to yours prayers, watches you masturbate and frowns on you eating certain types of food". I have a great deal more respect for someone who is a Deist rather than a Theist because a Deist by definition cannot really be a "true believer" in a religion because as far as I am aware there is no such religion that simply says that "God is everything that we dont yet know/understand, so there is no holy book, no priests, no holy places or shrines and there is no point praying because god wont answer even if god can hear you and god wont interfere in your life in any way".

There are actually a lot of Deists out there, many of them just dont realise that they are one, I by the way am not.

Any demand that reason alone be used to decide whether God exists is as much an unproven "belief" as any unproven believe that some people have that God does exist.

SCIENCE IS NOT REASON (=Philosophy).

It's not Kant's idea that we can only trust our own senses. He just eloquently said "I have to see it with my own eyes!"

The Scientific Method is founded upon repeatability. Facts must be independently reproducable and verifiable, thus enabling any scientist to experience it with their own senses. This is not just another belief-system. It's the opposite. It can be applied within any belief-system.

God does not exist, as none of the proposed deities of the various religions could be independently verified. Any argument for their existence is just valid within the respective belief-system.

God does exist by virtue of people believing in him. As does Superman. As soon as you think of something that doesn't exist, it exists in your brain. Metaphysically, no thing does ever not exist. And that's pseudo-philosophic non-sense.

I have read snippets written by both of those fine thinkers, but like most writings these bits of text were evidence against the belief in the supernatural rather than for it.

They certainly claimed that there is no rational proof whether God exists (and whether one could know anything about God via reason), but that had nothing to do with their personal belief about God one way or the other that they held despite the lack of rational proof.

andyb wrote:

I best add (before anyone else has the same train of thought as I have) that my "beliefs" as you put them are not in any way comparable to a religion, as unlike the religious I dont believe that I will go to hell/heaven for doing or not doing certain things, I can and will change my viewpoint when I feel that the change of view is merited, I also dont belong to a "club" of other people who think the way that I do, there is nothing to pray for or to, there is no holy book and no church. As someone once mentioned (likely paraphrased), "trying to get a large amount of Atheists together in one place and at one time is like herding cats."

I would completely disagree with the statement that your beliefs about science are not like a religion. You may change your mind about certain things, but not likely to change your mind in the supremacy of science and reason as the sole method for understanding the world, especially on the question of whether God exists. You have provided no proof that reason can know these questions (and Kant has explicitly said that reason cannot know them), so your sole reliance on reason and science in these matters is a "belief" just like any other religion.

andyb wrote:

... religion is man made - if it was created by a single all powerful all-knowing God then we wouldn't have thousands of religions with its different factions constantly murdering each other, we would have just one religion and one god.... unless god is a pervert and enjoys watching us in this perpetual state of hatred and violence (which if various holy books were true would be an accurate description).

Yes, religion is man made. But why do persist with equating religion with the question of whether God exists? Religion has little to do with the subject, just as there are many non-scientists (and often unreasonable people) who believe in the supremacy of science and reason.

You claimed above that "trying to get a large amount of Atheists together in one place and at one time is like herding cats." However, as you also pointed out, a lot wars and other conflicts have taken place simply because people practice different religions, so I would doubt your conclusions on that matter. There is lots of unanimity among atheists, at least when it comes to matters of religion and what tools should be used to obtain knowledge about whether God exists.

In general, you seem to be trying to prove that God does not exist by attacking religion, without really addressing the serious philosophical questions raised by those who belief God exists apart from any religious affiliation or religious worship. This is a logical fallacy, since not all people who believe that God exists even belong to a religion, and if God exists, that existence precedes man and any of his religions.

It's not Kant's idea that we can only trust our own senses. He just eloquently said "I have to see it with my own eyes!"

Could you provide a quote (translated from German to English) from Kant to substantiate that? Kant did not say we can only trust our own senses, nor did he state what you "quoted" above. I don't know where you are getting your interpretation of Kant, but it is completely inaccurate.

Kant said that the only thing we have knowledge about is our own subjective sense perceptions of the real world, and not knowledge of the objective world itself. He claimed (correctly) that this was a revolution in philosophy, although he did not foresee all of the implications and logical conclusions of his ideas.

tim851 wrote:

The Scientific Method is founded upon repeatability. Facts must be independently reproducable and verifiable, thus enabling any scientist to experience it with their own senses. This is not just another belief-system. It's the opposite. It can be applied within any belief-system.

You are partially correct. The scientific method can be repeated (in theory), but your assumption that repeatability is preferable over non-repeatability is part of your belief system. That is, you assume that repeatability will provide all the knowledge you seek, but it cannot be proven to do so in all matters.

tim851 wrote:

God does not exist, as none of the proposed deities of the various religions could be independently verified. Any argument for their existence is just valid within the respective belief-system.

It is your (unproven) belief system that:

1. God does not exist (you cannot prove that)2. That the only way to know whether God exists is through science and reason (what you call "independent verification")

Could you provide a quote (translated from German to English) from Kant to substantiate that?

I was paraphrasing heavily to make a point.

m0002a wrote:

You are partially correct. The scientific method can be repeated (in theory), but your assumption that repeatability is preferable over non-repeatability is part of your belief system. That is, you assume that repeatability will provide all the knowledge you seek, but it cannot be proven to do so in all matters.

I won't waste time playing pseudo-philosophic children's games. You are deliberately misusing the term "belief system". You are argumenting like the Bomb in the movie "Dark Star".

I've been forced to play these stupid things in philosophy class too. It's pointless. Because you've reached the end of argument if you postulate everything is just subjective belief. All discussion becomes self-entertainment at this stage, because nothing matters anymore.

Science doesn't provide knowledge. It is the only way to test knowledge.

m0002 wrote:

It is your (unproven) belief system that:

1. God does not exist (you cannot prove that)2. That the only way to know whether God exists is through science and reason (what you call "independent verification")

1. I don't have to. It's the great thing about science.

2. Or course it is. If you see God with your own eyes, the only way to make sure you ain't just hallucinating is to have other people see him too. And for other people to be sure, they have to do what you did to see him. That's not a belief system.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum